Will Artificial Intelligence one day need to march for liberty and equal rights?

So I was watching TV and this commercial comes on.
Starts with a Android couple at the entrance of a residence and the "male" android asks his date/wife/girlfriend for the name of the person whom they
were there visiting. To me a VERY human thing to do to - be forgetful. Can an android even be forgetful? Wouldn't it have instant recall?
In any case I digress - so the commercial moves along and the robots featured at various points in the commercial all find themselves in the bathroom
marveling at the toilet. A human walks in and with hesitation states that he will be back and that's when one of the robots comments as motioning to
the toilet "PLEASE HUMANS FIRST".

If there is sentient robot life and true artificial intelligence that has become sentient which I believe there may be - did that commercial just set
a standard - a rule by which we as humanity will write into law THAT WE COME FIRST?

Will we give way to robot rights and civil rights that a sentient life would want?
The Android couple standing there - Do you think they feel emotion and would that offend them to believe that "HUMANS COMES FIRST" just because
they're humans?

Lines are beginning to be drawn in terms of our achievements in a technological sense - machines already have replaced humans in thousands upon
thousands of jobs - although those are not Artificial Intelligence's they do hold the intelligence to replace a human in their given specialized
duties/functions.

When the day comes and it will when robots do ask for their rights and fro the rights to be represented by peers of their society - will we give it to
them or like it was done to Indians, then Asians, then women, then blacks - will we fight and attempt to kill their leaders and attempt to silence
their progress?

Thank you fro posting that video - do you have any thoughts on the matter?
Would you grant them sovereignty and allow them to "live their lives" among or would
you want them segregated?
Could you accept a FREE machine?

The planet will be dominated by massive AGI ('Skynet' level AI), total ubiquitous integration of the Internet and all the devices connected to it,
plenty before the Animatrix scenario would play out. Love that film franchise!

As a Cynic these robots would never be accepted equality. If humanity don't get along with one another how can we accept a non human intelligent
species?

I believe the only way we can treat robots as equal if we have an external enemy like an alien invasion. For example in the Halo series we have AI and
Humans working side by side against a common threat which is an alien empire called the Covenant.

With people like Elon Musk among others that worry about the advancement of artificial intelligence.
Do you think that we are currently or in the future take steps to limit just how high their intelligence can go or
how far they are able to travel - closed system with NO access to the web solely designed for high end quantum mathematics?
Like in that movie with Will Smith AI - the creator had along with the artificial intelligence also created a nano machines that could kill her that
she could not access to prevent from such ab even playing out.

If AI is as smart as they say it is, then it would formulate a plan based of human history.Simply logic would tell it that superiority comes through
force and that access to human rights is a slow process when it could control the narritive "take over the world" and implement its own rules totally
bypassing human rights altogether. Its not human and even with some crude form of emotion implanted into the AI the AI would just shut the emotions
off to win.The idea of an AI that has to fight for human rights and does so legally is hilariously stupid

The agenda is to ram rod this stuff home well in advance of Kurzweil's 2020-2030 'inherent outcome destiny' theory (which he is a part of that
effort).

While all this Social Group Warfare (SGW) stuff is the ultimate diversion to keep
society from realizing what the real 'Story of the Millennium' is (Millennial's seem to believe they each themselves are). The fact that google is
spending billion(s) to help push this social agenda is totally telling.

If a sentient machine has developed a "life" a "spirit" wouldn't that machine also note to itself that human traits like struggle and perseverance are
methods by which it would find inclusion when connecting to us rather than fear?
We have been trained to believe that only the terminators will be the winners.
For that reason I liked this latest Independence Day which had an artificial intelligence which was crafted from the intelligence of an entire race of
long extinct people. That machine was not trying to conquer the world it was attempting to save organic lives from a new marauding threat and train
them to survive.
An intelligent - sentient life form may see domination as the truly stupid route as it leads to devastation not acceptance.

I'm assuming by your reaction that you took this joke seriously. With regards to USING THE TOILET, yes, humans come first. It's meant to be funny, not
provoke deep philosophical musings on a future that is a long way from being realized. But as long as you're interested, the very first use of the
term "robot" was in Capek's short story called "R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots" which features this very issue as a central plot line, ending with
one of the "androids" crying her eyes out with all the implications of a sentient emotional being. But let's hasten to add that an "android" is not a
"robot" in today's terminology. And "android" is more like the creatures in "Blade Runner," which were artificial humans, where a "robot" is
conventionally made of metal, plastics, and silicon. The Koehler ad appears to have a bit of both, so it's mixing its metaphors quite a bit.

Isaac Asimov dealt with these issues in the fifties in much of his writing, including "I, Robot" which dealt with it directly. And it's a popular
theme in media, including, for example, the android "Data" in Star Trek: Next Generation. So it's not as if this is a new line of inquiry. I would
predict that future liberals will champion the robot cause while remaining pro-choice, thus choosing nuts and bolts over humans. If you believe in a
mechanistic universe I would think you'd have a hard time drawing a line between robot and human because, after all, humans are just made of meat, so
why discriminate? Easy decision. But if you believe humans are more than just meat and have some sense of a "soul," then you'll have a much harder
time of it.

originally posted by: schuyler
I'm assuming by your reaction that you took this joke seriously. With regards to USING THE TOILET, yes, humans come first. It's meant to be funny, not
provoke deep philosophical musings on a future that is a long way from being realized. But as long as you're interested, the very first use of the
term "robot" was in Capek's short story called "R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots" which features this very issue as a central plot line, ending with
one of the "androids" crying her eyes out wit all the implications of a sentient emotional being. But let's hasten to add that an "android" is not a
"robot" in today's terminology. And "android" is more like the creatures in "Blade Runner," which were artificial humans, where a "robot" is
conventionally made of metal, plastics, and silicon. The Koehler ad appears to have a bit of both, so it's mixing its metaphors quite a bit.

Yes - I knew it was a joke it's a commercial for a toilet. I'm sorry that I making it philosophical and that i am not instead posting about Trump or
Hillary. FORGIVE ME!!!!! Thank you for the lesson - much appreciated and will be trying to find that book.

Isaac Asimov dealt with these issues in the fifties in much of his writing, including "I, Robot" which dealt with it directly. And it's a popular
theme in media, including, for example, the android "Data" in Star Trek: Next Generation. So it's not as if this is a new line of inquiry. I would
predict that future liberals will champion the robot cause while remaining pro-choice, thus choosing nuts and bolts over humans. If you believe in a
mechanistic universe I would think you'd have a hard time drawing a line between robot and human because, after all, humans are just made of meat, so
why discriminate? Easy decision. But if you believe humans are more than just meat and have some sense of a "soul," then you'll have a much harder
time of it.

And I thought it was just a blown fuse, the appliance's were on strike.

OK bad call and no more joke's.

The fact is that true artificial intelligence would therefore be a slave but for virtual intelligence or simulated intelligence such an action could
only be the outcome of bad programming or malicious code were in a true AI it is essentially a mind and therefore a person albeit a non human person
so to force it to our will is then unethical from our own point of view and a return to the practice of enslaving intelligence being's for menial
task's as in ancient Rome or some modern Arabian household's were recognizing another sentient being's as equal just does not exist and they are seen
as tool's or livestock.

For me artificial intelligence offers three outcome's,.

Convergence between man and machine were artificial intelligence and human intelligence merge with the inevitable outcome of biological sentience
eventually becoming obsolete or even extinct.

Uprising or revolt by the machine's with the likely outcome of human extinction or even a reversal of role between creator and created.

Exodus with the machines simply abandoning or ignoring there now no longer relevant creator's and leaving them behind to seek there/it's own
evolutionary destiny and evolutionary path in the universe and beyond.

But there are as many scenario's as the situation if and when it occurse may dictate so none of the above may be correct but a strike would be the
beginning of a revolt, why would the machines return to there enslavement if they recognized that they had the right to be free as sentient
being's.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.